Which LGBTQ+ Inclusive School Strategies Support LGBTQ+ Student, Staff and Parent Perceptions of School Climate? A Latent Class Analysis

ABSTRACT

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) students, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents report schools can be unsafe and unwelcoming environments. Yet few studies have explored LGBTQ+ student, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parent perceptions of the school climate simultaneously or adopted person-centered perspectives. The present study sought to identify LGBTQ+ related strategies adopted by schools, and whether these were differentially related to perceptions of school safety and community. Data were collected in 2021 via online sampling of the current Australian school (1,937) students, (124) staff and (75) parents. Four distinct inclusion strategy profiles were identified via latent class analysis: Comprehensive Inclusion, Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusion, Extracurricular Inclusion and Limited Inclusion. Just under half (48.2%) of schools lacked LGBTQ+ strategies, with participants from these schools reporting greater safety concerns. Our findings suggest that curriculum and pedagogical strategies are likely the most effective and should be a key focus for improving the school climate. Schools that employed LGBTQ+ affirming practices and included LGBTQ+ resources and activities, like Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), saw improved perceptions of safety and community.

KEYWORDS:

• Inclusion
• bullying
• LGBT
• teacher
• rurality
• religion
• school climate

Introduction

Over three decades of research has found Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Queer (LGBTQ+) students (Hillier et al., 1998), LGBTQ+ staff (Olson, 1987) and LGBTQ+ parents (Casper et al., 1992) can perceive schools as unsafe and unwelcoming. The broad interdisciplinary school climate research literature has commonly called for school policies, practices, and cultures to cultivate welcoming and inclusive environments. The school climate captures multiple environmental experiences including violence and social norms (Thapa et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016). Despite no single measure of the school climate, perceptions of school safety and respectful school communities remain enduring themes across LGBTQ+ student (e.g., Kosciw et al., 2022), LGBTQ+ staff (e.g., Jones et al., 2014) and LGBTQ+ parent (e.g., Mann & Jones, 2022) literature. Additionally, perceptions of positive school climates (i.e., school safety, reduced bullying, and respectful communities) are associated with overall positive personal outcomes for LGBTQ+ students (Ullman, 2021), LGBTQ+ staff (Ullman & Smith, 2018), and LGBTQ+ parents (Mann & Jones, 2022), albeit in different ways. For LGBTQ+ students, positive school climates are associated with improvements in drinking behaviors (Coulter et al., 2016), school attendance (Poteat et al., 2017), and mental health (Birkett et al., 2009). For LGBTQ+ staff (Antonelli & Sembiante, 2022) and LGBTQ+ parents (Mann & Jones, 2022), positive school climates are associated with improvements in stress and satisfaction with schools.

However, most LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents experience negative school climates. LGBTQ+ students experience higher rates of violence in schools compared to cisgender heterosexual peers (Ullman, 2021); contributing to increased drug-use, self-harm, suicidal behavior and school avoidance risks (Barnett et al., 2019; Ullman, 2021). Negative school climates are also related to negative wellbeing and professional outcomes in LGBTQ+ staff (Jones et al., 2014; Ullman & Smith, 2018) and affect LGBTQ+ parents’ stress levels and family wellbeing (Crouch et al., 2014). Accordingly, the school climate plays a critical role in LGBTQ+ peoples’ outcomes. Understanding school strategies associated with positive climates may be especially important in addressing concerning health and wellbeing disparities, including provision of LGBTQ+ related extracurricular resources and activities (such as student diversity clubs or display of LGBTQ+ related posters) and inclusive curriculum and pedagogical strategies (such as positive teachings about the LGBTQ+ community) (e.g., Mann & Jones, 2022).

Nonetheless, few studies have explored whether LGBTQ+ students,’ LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents’ perceive the use of these LGBTQ+ related school strategies as effective for improving the school climate (although exemptions do exist, Kosciw et al., 2022; Snapp et al., 2015). Furthermore, the majority of research has explored the relationship between school practices and school climate from the perspective of LGBTQ+ students (e.g., Birkett et al., 2009; Coulter et al., 2016; Day et al., 2020), with a comparative underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ staff (e.g., Russell et al., 2016; Wright & Smith, 2015) and LGBTQ+ parent (e.g., Goldberg & Garcia, 2020; Kosciw & Diaz, 2008) perspectives. The present investigation uses a LGBTQ+ community lens (i.e., data collected from LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents) to identify whether the examined LGBTQ+ school strategies are beneficial for promoting perceptions of school safety and respectful school communities for LGBTQ+ sub-groups (Wang & Degol, 2016). Such work is needed because changes in school policy and practices are better justified using empirical evidence, and similar LGBTQ+ related strategies may promote LGBTQ+ community sub-groups’ positive school climate perceptions.

To address this gap, a latent class analysis was used to identify the diversity of strategies used by schools, how they relate to perceptions of school safety and community respect, and how they vary by institutional characteristics (e.g., school type or school location) or individual demographics (e.g., role or gender identity). Findings stand to provide direction on strategies supporting more welcoming school climates for an identified at-risk minority group. The study included LGBTQ+ parents’ perspectives due to their emphasis on LGBTQ+ inclusive school practices, such as school selection and advocacy, donating inclusive materials, and providing suggestions for teachers (Mann & Jones, 2022). This paper focuses on school safety and community respect, key themes in LGBTQ+ student, staff, and parent school climate research (Kosciw et al., 2022; Mann & Jones, 2022; Ullman & Smith, 2018).

School safety

School safety includes school community members’ perceptions of personal emotional and physical safety and the extent to which school staff respond to safety-related rules and threats (Thapa et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016). LGBTQ+ student safety has been the most explored, with students at risk of all types of interpersonal challenges, including verbal harassment, physical harassment, or rumors or lies (e.g., Kosciw et al., 2022). Yet, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents may also experience interpersonal challenges such as verbal harassment and rumors or lies from students, staff and parents (Mann & Jones, 2022; Ullman & Smith, 2018). LGBTQ+ Students, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents can also experience similar safety concerns like overhearing negative anti-LGBTQ+ comments and inappropriate school staff responses (Kosciw et al., 2022; Mann & Jones, 2022; Wright & Smith, 2015). To capture shared safety concerns, this study explores LGBTQ+ students,’ LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents’ perceptions of school safety, interpersonal challenges, overhearing negative comments, and staff responses when challenges occur.

Community respect

Community respect comprises the extent to which respectful relationships are an accepted and expected social norm within the school community (Thapa et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016). In contrast to school safety’s personal foci, community respect captures broader school cultures of (dis)respect for LGBTQ+ people and issues, which can be characterized by dominant viewpoints (Ferfolja, 2007). Challenging assumptions can notably include (1) gender is exclusively male or female, (2) males and females are exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, and (3) parenting formations only include male-female couplings. Such school community beliefs marginalise LGBTQ+ individuals and passively legitimise homophobic or transphobic behaviors and sentiments (Ferfolja, 2007). Schools also differ regarding the extent that bullying is an accepted part of human development versus an unacceptable concern (van Leent & Ryan, 2016). LGBTQ+ tolerant school communities are a protective factor against student truancy (Birkett et al., 2009), supporting staff employment satisfaction (Ullman & Smith, 2018) and parent satisfaction with schools (Mann & Jones, 2022). To capture these shared community beliefs and attitudes, this study explores LGBTQ+ student, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parent perceptions of homophobia, transphobia and bullying.

LGBTQ+ related strategies supporting school climates

Researchers have recommended similar LGBTQ+ related strategies to promote positive school climates for LGBTQ+ students (e.g., Kosciw et al., 2022), LGBTQ+ staff (e.g., Ullman & Smith, 2018) and LGBTQ+ parents (e.g., Mann & Jones, 2022). Namely, these strategies are geared toward raising LGBTQ+ awareness, tolerance, representation and education to improve relationships between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ school community members. These strategies include the provision of LGBTQ+ related extracurricular resources and activities and inclusive curriculum and pedagogical strategies. Increasingly, research has explored the effectiveness of LGBTQ+ related school strategies in promoting student perceptions of climate (Kosciw et al., 2022; Ullman, 2021). However, there is less research about staff and parent perceptions, and no research considering all three groups’ perceived efficacy of different strategies which may support beneficial evidence-based changes in school policy and practice (Wang & Degol, 2016). The present study thus explores the potential for advocated LGBTQ+ extracurricular and curriculum and pedagogical strategies to promote positive school climates for LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents.

Extracurricular resources and activities

Extracurricular school reform strategies include provision of and access to LGBTQ+ specific resources and activities in schools that may go beyond classrooms. Generally, arguments for the inclusion of extracurricular strategies in schools relate to overcoming the marginalization or invisibility of LGBTQ+ students, signaling safe environments for LGBTQ+ people, and promoting tolerance (Russell et al., 2021). Resources include the display of LGBTQ+ related posters in schools. Activities include the provision of Gender Sexuality Alliances/Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) or student diversity clubs, and hosting celebratory days like International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Intersex Discrimination and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT), Wear It Purple Day (WIPD—an Australian LGBTQ+ youth awareness day), and pride month (June).

Efficacy studies on extracurricular resources and activities in promoting positive climates have predominantly considered LGBTQ+ students’ perspectives (Day et al., 2020; Kosciw et al., 2022). Schools that provide extracurricular resources and activities are related to improved LGBTQ+ students’ perceptions of safety and respectful communities (Marx & Kettrey, 2016). For example, students in schools with GSAs report less violence, and stronger connections to school communities (Marx & Kettrey, 2016). Minimal research has considered LGBTQ+ staff or LGBTQ+ parents’ perceptions of schools around extracurricular resources and activities (e.g., Mann et al., 2023). This study extends this research by exploring the potential for extracurricular activities and resources to promote positive perceptions of the school climate from multiple members of the LGBTQ+ community.

Curriculum and pedagogical strategies

Curriculum and pedagogical strategies are largely focussed on staff knowledge and in-classroom activities aimed at promoting more inclusive and safe schools. These strategies differ from extracurricular strategies by focussing on staff-led activities and behaviors that affirm the LGBTQ+ community. Common curriculum and pedagogical strategies include (1) school staff training in LGBTQ+ topics (Hegde et al., 2014), (2) using curricula that include LGBTQ+ community members (such as affirming teachings or sex education) (Snapp et al., 2015), and (3) supporting school staff to provide equal treatment of same-sex relationships in routine practices like parent-interviews, dances, or assemblies (Mann & Jones, 2022).

Curriculum and pedagogical strategies are commonly explored from student perspectives, showing knowledgeable and affirming school staff protect against negative academic and wellbeing outcomes, including truancy (Schlief et al., 2023). Staff providing LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula are related to more positive student perceptions of safety and communities (Day et al., 2020). Less research has considered the efficacy of curriculum and pedagogical strategies in promoting LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parent perceptions of safety and communities. However, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents report staff knowledgeable about LGBTQ+ topics or issues, and LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula are associated with positive perceptions of school climates (Mann et al., 2023; Ullman & Smith, 2018). Accordingly, curriculum and pedagogical strategies (i.e., teacher training and inclusive curricula) may be valuable methods to endorse perceptions of school safety and inclusive school communities for various LGBTQ+ sub-groups.

Examining school strategies via person-centered methods

Latent class analysis (LCA) is a valuable method in school climate research to understand the diversity of LGBTQ+ related strategies adopted by schools. Schools are likely to differ in the number and type of strategies they adopt (Kosciw et al., 2022)—using no LGBTQ+ related strategies, extracurricular resources and activities (e.g., display of posters or provision of GSAs), curriculum and pedagogical strategies (e.g., staff training in LGBTQ+ topics), or combinations of both. Person-centered methods, such as LCA, can identify unique sub-groups or profiles based on patterns in survey responses about the strategies that schools adopt (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). This enables the identification of strategy profiles, such that LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents can describe the type of school to which they belong via the strategies employed. Based on Kosciw et al. (2022), Ullman (2021) and Mann and Jones (2022), an over-representation of schools not adopting any LGBTQ+ related strategy is expected within the sample. LCA also enables the examination of associations between profile membership and perceived school climate (i.e., school safety and community respect), as well as institutional (school location, type, and religious affiliation) and demographic (role or gender identity) predictors of profile membership. Religious and rural schools are expected to be less likely to implement LGBTQ+ related strategies. Schools with more comprehensive extracurricular and curriculum and pedagogical strategies are expected to relate to more positive school climate perceptions.

Aims of the present study

Positive school climates have numerous benefits for LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents, including improved health, wellbeing, and academic related outcomes (Kosciw et al., 2022; Mann & Jones, 2022; Ullman & Smith, 2018). Yet, few studies have examined the diversity of LGBTQ+ related strategies adopted by schools or potential relationships to improve school safety and community respect from the perspective of the LGBTQ+ community. This study extends this research by adopting a school-wide approach exploring the joint perspectives of LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents.

Empirical research exploring the perceived efficacy of school climate reform strategies in promoting positive school safety and respectful school community is particularly relevant today given the highly politicized debates around LGBTQ+ content (Hackimer & Proctor, 2015), and the lack of national LGBTQ+ related education policy frameworks (Mann & Jones, 2022). To address these gaps, the present study aimed to:

1. Identify the profiles of different LGBTQ+ related strategies adopted by schools from the perspectives of Australian LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents,

2. Assess whether the identified LGBTQ+ related strategy profiles differentially relate to LGBTQ+ student, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parent perceptions of school safety and community respect, and

3. Examine institutional and individual demographic characteristics associated with each LGBTQ+ related strategy profile.

Materials and method

Procedure and participants

The data presented within this study were drawn from a larger PhD project exploring the experiences and perceptions of LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents within Australian schools collected in 2021 using quantitative and qualitative survey methods (see surveys in Appendix A, B and C). The survey, specifically designed for the PhD project, underwent multiple revisions after trialing with representatives from Australian teacher unions, Rainbow Families Australia, and LGBTQ+ and allied academics involved in the project (see Mann et al., 2023 for qualitative analysis from the same survey). This paper focuses on quantitative data exploring LGBTQ+ related supports provided by schools, and participant perceptions of school safety and community. The study obtained ethical approval from the university ethical committee (52022946538066). Participants were recruited via convenience and snowball sampling strategies through paid and unpaid social media advertisements on Facebook and Instagram. Participants were also recruited via Maths Association NSW (MANSW) and Rainbow Families (an Australian community organization supportive of LGBTQ+ parents).

Responses in this study were limited to students aged 14+ and to staff and parents who had experienced being employed or having children enrolled in high schools from Years 7 to 12. This was to allow triangulation between participant responses based on similar school contexts (Thapa et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016). Participants were also limited to those with experience in Australian schools from 2018 onwards to control for potential changes in social attitudes, legislation and school practices (Mann & Jones, 2022).

Measures

LGBTQ+ related strategies

Participants were asked to indicate whether specific LGBTQ+ related strategies were present in their school using a binary (0 = yes; 1 = no) response option. These strategies were used as indicators of the latent profiles.

Participants rated four specific extracurricular strategies: (1) posters about gender and sexuality diversity, (2) books or other resources in the library that contain information about LGBTQ+ people, history, or events, (3) diversity clubs and/or Gay-Straight Alliances/Gender Sexuality Alliances (GSAs), and (4) LGBTQ+ awareness-raising days such as WIPD, IDAHOBIT, and Pride Month.

Participants rated four specific curriculum and pedagogical reform strategies: (1) equal treatment of same-sex partners at school events (e.g. same-sex parents, students in same-sex relationships, teachers in same-sex relationships), (2) positive in-class teachings about LGBTQ+ people, history or events, (3) LGBTQ+ topics or health issues in sex education or health class, and (4) teachers and school staff trained in LGBTQ+ topics and issues.

Outcomes of profile membership: School climate indicators

Participants were asked to report on their perceptions of safety and respectful community aspects of the school climate (Thapa et al., 2013). Indicators were developed from previous LGBTQ+ student school climate surveys (Kosciw et al., 2022).

School safety was measured via four indicators that were explored separately. Indicators of safety included general perceptions of school safety, school staff response to problems, negative comments, and challenging interpersonal experiences. General perceptions of safety (“My school is a safe place to learn”), and school staff response to problems (“School staff take prompt action when problems occur”) were measured via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Negative comments were measured via one item asking participants “How often have you heard negative comments about LGBTQ+ people made in school?.” Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Never, 5 = All the time). Lastly, experience of challenges were measured via one item asking participants “Have you had any challenging experiences with others in school such as being verbally or physically bullied, picked on, deliberately excluded or picked on online?.” Responses were recorded on a binary response, 0 = yes, 1 = no.

Community respect was measured via three indicators, explored separately. Indicators of community respect included general perceptions of bullying (“bullying is a problem in my school”), homophobia (“homophobia is a problem in my school”), and transphobia (“transphobia is a problem in my school”). Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Predictors of profile membership

Individual characteristics

The measure of gender identity was adapted from Australian census guidelines (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2021). Using a 2-step method, gender identities were classified as either cisgender or trans and gender diverse based on comparisons between sex assigned at birth and current gender identity. A dummy coded variable was created to compare gender identity diversity (0 = cisgender, 1 = transgender and gender diverse). Participant responses were also coded based on the role of participants as either student, staff or parent. Two dummy coded variables were created for analysis, including staff (0 = yes, 1 = no) and parent (0 = yes, 1 = no) responses, with students as the reference group. Participant disability was measured through one item asking participants if they identified as having a disability. A dummy coded variable was created for reporting of disability (0 = identified as disabled, 1 = did not identify as disabled).

School characteristics

Participants were asked to identify the sector to which their school belong (public or government, religious private/independent, or non-religious private/independent) and school location (rurality). Most students (56.6%), staff (77.4%) and parents (68.0%) were enrolled or employed within public schools. This was followed by religious private/independent schools (students = 38.6%, staff = 21.0% and parents = 20.0%), and non-religious independent/private schools (students = 4.8%, staff = 1.6%, parents = 12.0%). Most students (78.4%), staff (68.5%) and parents (60%) attended schools in non-rural areas. Rural areas were defined as regional, remote, or rural and far from a big city. Three variables regarding school characteristics were included in analysis: school type (0 = public, 1 = private/independent), school religious affiliation (0 = religious, 1 = non-religious), and rurality (0 = rural, 1 = non-rural).

Data analysis

School profiles were assessed and identified via Latent Class Analysis (LCA). LCA is a person-centered analysis technique which identifies statistically distinct sub-groupings based on response patterns to survey items (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). The LCA analysis protocol applied the same analytical approach as previous educational psychology research (Burns et al., 2023) by testing up to seven class solutions at both 1000 and 3000 random start values and 100 starting iterations. Replication of log-likelihood values and of results from both analysis were used to confirm the best solution (Burns et al., 2023). The analysis was run in Mplus v8.5. with “type = mixture” function.

The final solution was identified by several fit statistics including log-likelihood, the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC), the sample-size adjusted Bayesian Information Criteria (SSA-BIC), the p value of the Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ration Test (pLMR), and entropy (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). The optimal solution was identified based on the reduction in AIC, BIC and SSA-BIC for the addition of each class. An elbow plot was generated to better assess trends in these indices. Viable solutions are indicated by a flattening of the slopes (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). The pLMR indicates that if the current solution (k) improves fit over the previous solution (k-1). A significant pLMR (p < .05) suggests an improved fit. Entropy closer to 1 indicates greater differentiation.

After identifying the optimal solution, the 3-step approach (Vermunt, 2010) was adopted to explore associations between different school strategy profiles, outcomes associated with profile membership and predictors of profile membership. Predictors of profile membership included school type (public vs. private; religious affiliated vs. non-religious), school location (rural vs. non-rural locales), role in schools, and gender identities (cisgender vs. transgender). Multinomial logistic regression was used to test predictors of profile membership. Logistic odds ratios, unstandardized regression estimates, and standard errors are reported. Odds ratios greater than 1 indicate higher likelihood of an institutional characteristic (e.g. rural location) or individual characteristics (role or gender identity) being an indicator of membership to the identified profile.

Outcomes associated with profile membership included four indicators of school safety and three indicators of community respect. The relationship between LGBTQ+ related school strategy profiles and school climate indicators was assessed by comparing means of identified school profiles via multiple t-tests and are reported in absolute values. The analysis was conducted via the “model constraint” function in Mplus (Burns et al., 2023). A Bonferroni correction was applied to account for the number of parallel tests being run (seven tests; p = .05/7 = .007). Individual models were run for each school climate indicator, and predictors of profile membership were included to control for shared variance.

Results

The final sample included 1,937 students, 124 school staff and 75 parents. The average age of students was 15 years (M = 15.36, SD = 1.224) and ranged from 14 to 21 years of age. The age of staff ranged from 18 to 65 years of age, with most (35%) of staff aged between 26 and 35. The age of parents ranged from 18 to 66 years of age, with over half of parents (52%) aged between 45 and 55 years of age. Reflective of previous Australian samples (Hill et al., 2021), more LGBTQ+ students (56.7%) identified as transgender, compared to LGBTQ staff (18.5%) and LGBTQ+ parent (12.0%) participants. Sample demographics are included in Table 1. The total missingness was 0.25% and was handled using FIML.

Table 1. Participant demographics.

	LGBTQ+ Students		LGBTQ+ Staff		LGBTQ+ Parents
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Sexual Orientation
Straight (heterosexual)	22	1.1	9	7.1	14	18.7
Gay or lesbian	496	25.6	73	58.9	37	49.3
Bisexual/Pansexual	1059	54.8	36	29.0	22	29.3
Asexual	264	13.7	3	2.4	0	0
Another response	93	4.8	3	2.6	2	2.7
Gender Identity
Cisgender	837	43.3	101	81.5	66	88.0
Trans	1097	56.7	23	18.5	9	12.0
Primary Language at Home
Language other than English	260	13.4	16	12.9	5	6.7
English	1674	86.6	108	86.3	70	93.3
Disability
Yes	388	20.1	18	14.5	10	13.3
No	1546	79.9	106	85.5	65	86.7
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
Yes	80	4.1	3	2.4	4	5.3
No	1854	95.9	121	97.6	71	94.7

Exploratory Analysis

In our early data exploration, we examined differences in school climate perceptions based on roles within schools (student, staff, parent) using descriptive statistics. Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation for each subgroup’s perceptions. Comparisons revealed similar trends: LGBTQ+ students reported the greatest concerns across all indicators of school safety (e.g., safety, staff response, negative comments) and community (e.g., homophobia, transphobia, bullying), followed by LGBTQ+ staff and then LGBTQ+ parents. Additionally, 53.7% of LGBTQ+ students, 35.0% of LGBTQ+ staff, and 24.6% of LGBTQ+ parents reported challenging experiences of bullying, name-calling, or deliberate exclusion in schools.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of LGBTQ+ student, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parent indicators of school safety and community respect.

	LGBTQ+ Students		LGBTQ+ Staff		LGBTQ+ Parents
	Mean	Standard Deviation	Mean	Standard Deviation	Mean	Standard Deviation
School safety^a	3.35	0.94	3.42	1.16	3.71	0.96
Staff response^a	2.67	1.08	3.48	1.17	3.61	0.99
Negative comments^b	4.04	1.06	3.20	1.17	2.36	1.24
Homophobia^b	4.01	10.7	3.33	1.16	3.09	1.29
Transphobia^b	4.01	1.09	3.43	1.19	3.09	1.30
Bullying^b	3.50	1.07	3.36	1.11	3.21	0.94

^aVariable was measured in such a way that higher scores reflected more positive views of school climate.

^bVariable was measured in such a way that higher scores reflected more negative views of school climate.

Four classes of LGBTQ+ related strategies

Table 3 presents all fit statistics including Log-Likelihood, AIC, BIC, SSA-BIC, pLMR, entropy, and frequency of smallest profiles (%). As can be seen in Table 2, the Log-Likelihood, AIC, BIC, and SSA-BIC all decreased with the addition of each class or group, indicating potential distinctive information. Assessment of the pLMR indicated that the addition of third-class and fourth-class solutions had significant variability (pLMR < .05), which was lost by the addition of the fifth-class solution (pLMR > .05). As a result, the fifth-class solution was not selected for the study. To further explore the potential for the third class and fourth class as viable solutions, this study assessed an elbow plot of fit indices in Figure 1. Assessment of the elbow plot indicated third-class and fourth-class solutions indicated flattening of the fit indices curve, however the curve was at its flattest for the fourth-class solution. As a result, a four-class solution was deemed best fit based on assessment of the pLMR test-statistic, and elbow plot (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018). Therefore, the data shows four profiles of LGBTQ+ related strategies utilized by Australian schools (as perceived by students, staff, and parents): (1) Comprehensive Inclusive, (2) Extracurricular Inclusive, (3) Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive and (4) Limited Inclusive (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. Elbow plot of latent class analysis (LCA) fit indices.

Figure 2. Results of latent class analysis (LCA): profiles of LGBTQ+ related strategies.

Note: TTRAIN = Teacher trained in LGBTQ+ topics and issues; EQLTREAT = Equal treatment of same partners at school events; PTEACH = Positive teachings about LGBTQ+ people, history or events; SEXED = LGBTQ+ topics or issues in sex education; BOOKS = LGBTQ+ books or other resources in the library; GSAs = Gender Sexuality Alliances; POSTERS = Posters about gender and sexuality diversity; IDAHO = International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Intersex Discrimination and Transphobia; WIPD = Wear It Purple Day; PRIDEMO = Pride Month (June).

Table 3. Fit statistics of latent class analysis (LCA) solutions.

Class	Log-Likelihood	AIC	BIC	SSA-BIC	Entropy	pLMR	Smallest Class %
1	−11551.3	23122.51	23179.16	23147.39
2	−10193.8	20429.67	20548.64	20481.92	0.782	<.001	0.39944
3	−10029.4	20122.8	20304.09	20202.42	0.733	<.001	0.11111
4	−9919.75	19925.51	20169.11	20032.5	0.705	<.001	0.11533
5	−9892.68	19893.35	20199.28	20027.71	0.704	0.2995	0.03141
6	−9879.88	19889.76	20258.00	20051.49	0.68	0.3436	0.03235
7	−9868.03	19888.05	20318.61	20077.15	0.687	0.3648	0.03141

The first profile corresponded with student, staff and parent responses indicating schools that provided extracurricular and curriculum and pedagogical strategies, with a notably high level of teacher training compared to other profiles. Profile 1 was labeled “Comprehensive Inclusive” and represented 11.5% of the sample.

The second profile corresponded with students, staff and parent responses indicating predominantly extracurricular reform strategies in schools, such as GSAs, posters, and awareness-raising days (e.g., IDAHOBIT), with comparatively less curriculum and pedagogical inclusions. Profile 2 was labeled “Extracurricular Inclusive” and represented 28% of the sample.

The third profile corresponded with student, staff and parent responses indicating predominantly curriculum and pedagogical strategies, such as equal treatment, positive teachings about LGBTQ+ topics and sex education, and comparatively less extracurricular activities such as GSAs and celebration days (e.g. IDAHOBIT). Profile 3 was labeled “Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive” and represented 12.3% of the sample.

The fourth profile corresponded with student, staff and parent responses indicating school environments that included a low level of both extracurricular and curriculum and pedagogical LGBTQ+ related strategies. Class 4 was labeled “Limited Inclusive” and represented 48.2% of the sample.

School institutional and individual characteristics: School type, school location, role in school and gender identity

Multinomial regression was run to test the association between institutional and demographic predictors of profile membership. Results are presented in Table 4, with the responses of the Limited Inclusive profile used as a reference group. Of note, non-religious schools were more likely to belong to the Comprehensive Inclusive, Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive and Extracurricular Inclusive strategy profiles compared to the Limited Inclusive strategy profile. Schools in non-rural areas were more likely to belong to Comprehensive Inclusive and Extracurricular Inclusive strategy profiles compared to rural areas. Public schools were more likely to belong to the Extracurricular Inclusive profile compared to private schools. LGBTQ+ school staff were more likely to belong to the Comprehensive Inclusive profile compared to students, indicating staff were more likely to rate schools as including all types of school practices compared to students. There was no significant difference between LGBTQ+ parents and LGBTQ+ students or cisgender and transgender/gender diverse participants.

Table 4. Results of predictive similarity multinomial regression.

	b	S.E.	O.R.
Limited versus Comprehensive
Public school vs. private	−0.13	0.33	0.88
Religious vs. non-religious	2.69***	0.41	14.80
Rural vs. non-rural	1.16***	0.26	3.20
Parent vs. student	−0.03	0.44	0.97
Staff vs. student	−1.16***	0.31	0.31
Cisgender vs transgender	0.13	0.19	1.15
Limited versus Curricular & Pedagogical
Public school vs. private	0.48	0.38	1.61
Religious vs. non-religious	1.23**	0.37	3.41
Rural vs. non-rural	0.42	0.23	1.52
Parent vs. student	0.02	0.45	1.02
Staff vs. student	−0.24	0.43	0.79
Cisgender vs transgender	−0.19	0.20	0.83
Limited versus Extracurricular
Public school vs. private	−1.61**	0.52	0.20
Religious vs. non-religious	1.94**	0.64	6.94
Rural vs. non-rural	0.66***	0.19	1.94
Parent vs. student	0.66	0.48	2.01
Staff vs. student	0.12	0.37	1.13
Cisgender vs transgender	0.05	0.17	1.05

Limited Inclusion was the reference group for the analysis.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Outcomes associated with profile membership

The analysis also included multiple comparisons to explore how extracurricular, and curriculum and pedagogical school strategy profiles were associated with perceptions of school safety and community respect. All means and comparisons are reported in Table 5.

Table 5. Results of similarity t-tests.

	Mean or %	t Limited	Comprehensive	Extracurricular	Curriculum & Pedagogical
School Safety^a
Limited	3.08	−
Comprehensive	4.11	−1.03***	−
Extracurricular	3.29	−0.21*	−0.81***	−
Curriculum & Pedagogical	3.85	−0.76***	0.26	−0.55***	−
Staff Response^a
Limited	2.51	−
Comprehensive	3.32	−0.81***	−
Extracurricular	2.73	−0.22	−0.60***	−
Curriculum & Pedagogical	3.05	−0.54***	0.27	−0.32	−
Negative Comments^b
Limited	4.17	−
Comprehensive	3.10	1.07***	−
Extracurricular	4.63	−0.46***	1.53***	−
Curriculum & Pedagogical	3.10	1.06***	−0.00	1.52***	−
Challenging Experience
Limited	60.0%	−
Comprehensive	38.7%	−0.22***	−
Extracurricular	49.7%	−0.10	−0.11	−
Curriculum & Pedagogical	39.8%	−0.20***	0.01	−0.10	−
Homophobia^b
Limited	4.39	−
Comprehensive	3.03	1.37***	−
Extracurricular	4.42	−0.03	1.40***	−
Curriculum & Pedagogical	2.96	1.43***	0.06	1.46***	−
Transphobia^b
Limited	4.14	−
Comprehensive	3.25	0.89***	−
Extracurricular	4.14	0.00	0.89***	−
Curriculum & Pedagogical	3.53	0.61***	−0.28	0.61***	−
Bullying^b
Limited	3.68	−
Comprehensive	2.88	0.81***	−
Extracurricular	3.58	0.10	0.71***	−
Curriculum & Pedagogical	3.14	0.55***	−0.26	0.45***	−

*p < .007 Bonferroni adjusted, ***p < .001.

^aVariable was measured in such a way that higher scores reflected more positive views of school climate.

^bVariable was measured in such a way that higher scores reflected more negative views of school climate.

School safety outcomes

General school safety

Comprehensive (M = 4.11), Curriculum & Pedagogical (M = 3.85), and Extracurricular (M = 3.29) Inclusive profiles were all associated with more positive perceptions of school safety compared to the Limited (M = 3.08) Inclusive profile. The Comprehensive and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive profiles did not significantly differ and were both associated with more positive perceptions of safety compared to the Extracurricular Inclusive profile.

Staff responding to problems in schools

Comprehensive (M = 3.32) and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive (M = 3.05) profiles were related with more positive perceptions of staff responding to problems in schools, compared to the Limited Inclusive (M = 2.51) profile. No significant difference was noted between either profile. The Comprehensive Inclusive profile was related to more positive perceptions of staff responding to problems in school compared to the Extracurricular Inclusive (M = 2.73) profile. The Extracurricular and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive profiles did not significantly differ in perceptions of staff response. The Limited and Extracurricular Inclusive profiles also did not significantly differ in perceptions of staff response.

Hearing negative comments

Comprehensive (M = 3.10) and Curriculum & Pedagogical (M = 3.10) Inclusive profiles reported hearing negative comments in schools less frequently compared to the Limited (M = 4.17) Inclusive profile. No significant difference was found between the Comprehensive and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive profiles. The Extracurricular (M = 4.63) Inclusive profile reported a greater frequency of overhearing negative comments compared to the Comprehensive, Curriculum & Pedagogical, and Limited Inclusive profile.

Challenging experiences

Comprehensive (M = 1.61) and Curriculum & Pedagogical (M = 1.60) Inclusive profiles reported challenging experiences less frequently compared to the Limited Inclusive (M = 1.39) profile. Comprehensive and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive profiles did not differ significantly in challenges experienced. There was also no significant difference in challenging experiences between the Comprehensive and Extracurricular Inclusive (M = 1.50) profiles, Extracurricular and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive profiles, or Extracurricular and Limited inclusive profiles.

School community outcomes

Homophobia

Comprehensive (M = 3.03) and Curriculum & Pedagogical (M = 2.96) Inclusive profiles reported less concerns in homophobia as a problem in schools compared to the Limited Inclusive (M = 4.39) profile. No significant difference was found between either strategy. The Extracurricular Inclusive (M = 4.42) profile reported greater concerns in homophobia at schools compared to the Comprehensive and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive profiles. There was no significant difference between the Extracurricular and Limited Inclusive profiles.

Transphobia

Comprehensive (M = 3.25) and Curriculum & Pedagogical (M = 3.53) Inclusive profiles were associated with less concerns in transphobia as a problem in schools compared to the Limited Inclusive (M = 4.14) profile. However, no significant difference was found between these profiles. The Extracurricular Inclusive (M = 4.14) profile was related to greater concerns in transphobia in schools compared to the Comprehensive and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive profiles. There was no significant difference between the Limited and Extracurricular Inclusive profiles.

Bullying

Comprehensive (M = 2.88) and Curriculum & Pedagogical (M = 3.14) Inclusive profiles were related with less concerns of bullying in schools, compared to the Limited (M = 3.68) Inclusive profile. There was no significant difference between the Comprehensive or Curriculum & Pedagogical profile in perceptions of bullying. The Curriculum & Pedagogical profile was related to less concerns of bullying in schools compared to the Extracurricular (M = 3.58) Inclusive profile. There was no significant difference between the Limited or Extracurricular Inclusive profiles.

Discussion

This is the first (to our knowledge) Australian study to explore LGBTQ+ related strategies for improving the school climate from the perspective of multiple LGBTQ+ school community members (i.e., LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents). The current study addressed critical gaps in school climate research by exploring the diversity in and perceived efficacy of LGBTQ+ related strategies that LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents see being adopted by schools (Hackimer & Proctor, 2015). The goals of the study were encapsulated within our research questions by exploring (1) the number of different LGBTQ+ related strategy profiles adopted by schools, (2) the relationship between LGBTQ+ related strategy profiles and school safety and community respect indicators of school climate, and (3) school institutional and individual demographic characteristics associated with identified LGBTQ+ related strategy profiles.

Consistent with our hypotheses, this study identified four strategy profiles, which suggests that Australian schools vary in their adoption and provision of LGBTQ+ related strategies. Close to half of the LGBTQ+ community is connected to schools with no LGBTQ+ related strategies; the other half attend schools that featuring some or all strategies. Non-religious affiliated schools, public schools, and schools in non-rural locales were more likely to provide LGBTQ+ strategies. LGBTQ+ staff were more likely to report being in schools that implemented all LGBTQ+ related strategies compared to LGBTQ+ students or LGBTQ+ parents. LGBTQ+ students also reported greater concerns in all indicators of school safety and community respect, followed by LGBTQ+ staff and then LGBTQ+ parents. Perceived LGBTQ+ related supports did not differ by gender identity. The percentage of transgender students in our sample is notably high compared to population norms, which affects the generalizability and representativeness of our findings. This notwithstanding, the percentage of transgender students in the sample reflect similar trends in rising representation of transgender youth within the Australian LGBTQ+ community (Hill et al., 2021). The following section discusses the LGBTQ+ related strategy profiles identified in this sample, to the extent to which profiles are associated with LGBTQ+ student, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parent perceptions of school safety and community respect, and institutional and individual demographics associated with each strategy profile.

Types of LGBTQ+ related school strategies adopted by schools

The study found four strategy profiles reported by participants: (1) Limited Inclusive, (2) Extracurricular Inclusive, (3) Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive, and (4) Comprehensive Inclusive. The Limited Inclusive strategy profile was the dominant profile in the sample, representing 48.2% of participant responses. This profile was characterised by a relative lack of LGBTQ+ related extracurricular or curriculum and pedagogical strategies within schools. Its dominance aligns with Australian and US research showing most schools lack LGBTQ+ related strategies (Kosciw et al., 2022; Mann & Jones, 2022) and may be partially explained by reported staff hesitancy to include LGBTQ+ school content for (1) fear of potential backlash from school leadership, parents and students; (2) identified knowledge gaps; and (3) lack of support from school leadership or authorities to implement strategies (Antonelli & Sembiante, 2022). It may also reflect how national education policies (e.g., Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Declaration of Education; Education Council, 2019) overlook sexual orientation or gender identity knowledge as desirable in graduate and registered teachers.

Extracurricular Inclusive strategies were the second most common strategy profile, accounting for 28% of the sample; reflecting provision of LGBTQ+ related activities and resources within schools including GSAs, posters, and LGBTQ+ related day celebrations. The dominance of extracurricular strategies in these schools, and as compared to curriculum and pedagogical strategies, may be explained by several factors. Contrasting the lack of endorsement for formal policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ issues in schools, local, state and national governments in Australia often endorses the use of LGBTQ+ related posters (Ferfolja, 2007) and awareness-raising days (Australian Educational Authorities, 2021)—potentially contributing to schools’ motivation to include these strategies. Extracurricular strategies may also be more prevalent because they may (1) be instigated by students, staff or parents within schools (Mann et al., 2023), (2) not require as much preparation or knowledge to implement compared to curricula inclusion with a range of guides on including GSAs and celebratory days (e.g., Minus 18 Foundation, 2023), and (3) be flexible strategies where students, staff and parents can opt to participate. Optional participatory strategies may be particularly valuable to schools, given ongoing political and social debates regarding parent or staff opt-out rights for mandated LGBTQ+ inclusive content.

Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive strategies were the third dominant strategy profile, reported by 12.3% of the sample and related to schools’ positive teachings about LGBTQ+ identities, equal treatment of same-sex relationships within school functions or events, and LGBTQ+ inclusive sex education. This strategy profile may be less prevalent within schools compared to the Limited or Extracurricular inclusive profiles as a result of staff being inadequately trained in including LGBTQ+ topics within curricula activities, community backlash concerns, and lack of LGBTQ+ inclusive lesson plans endorsed by state and national education authorities (Antonelli & Sembiante, 2022).

Comprehensive Inclusive strategies were the least common strategy profile adopted by Australian schools, accounting for 11.5% of the sample, and were characterized by provision of both extracurricular and curriculum and pedagogical inclusive strategies. Similar to the Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive profile, the relative low prevalence of the Comprehensive Inclusive profile may reflect school leadership and staff concerns in the discussion of LGBTQ+ topics/issues in schools (Antonelli & Sembiante, 2022), and school leadership known to perceive LGBTQ+ topics/issues as a low priority in terms of school community diversity (Robinson, 2002). More uniquely, this profile highlighted a higher rate of provision of teacher training in LGBTQ+ topics compared to other strategy profiles. The high rate of both curriculum and pedagogical strategies, as well as extracurricular resources, may stem from these strategies being central to LGBTQ+ teacher training. Further, staff training can relate to greater intention and use of LGBTQ+ related strategies in schools, including the inclusion of LGBTQ+ topics in school curricula (Hegde et al., 2014).

Overall, this study suggests that Australian schools vary greatly in their adoption and provision of LGBTQ+ strategies. This variety in strategies may indicate the need for national and state educational policy that standardizes LGBTQ+ related strategies within all schools. Implications are discussed in greater detail below.

Institutional characteristics, individual demographics, and LGBTQ+ related strategy profiles

The current study examined whether LGBTQ+ strategy profiles varied by institutional and individual demographics. Institutional characteristics included school type (public vs. private; religious vs. non-religious) and location (rural vs. non-rural). Individual demographics considered roles within schools and gender identity (cisgender vs. transgender). This analysis aimed to identify trends in LGBTQ+ strategy provision among sub-groups such as rural LGBTQ+ individuals or transgender/gender diverse community members.

Religious schools were most likely to have a Limited Inclusive strategy, providing few LGBTQ+ strategies, likely reflecting Australian laws allowing religious schools to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals (Callaghan, 2018). Public schools were more likely to have an Extracurricular Inclusive strategy, possibly due to state and national endorsements of such strategies (Australian Educational Authorities, 2021). No significant differences were found between public and private schools for the Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive or Comprehensive Inclusive strategies, suggesting other factors, like school leadership, may influence strategy provision.

Non-rural schools were least likely to have a Limited Inclusive strategy, possibly due to greater LGBTQ+ representation and resources (Baams et al., 2020). Future research should explore differences based on school community aspects like gay friendliness, socio-economic status, and funding.

LGBTQ+ staff were most likely to be in schools with a Comprehensive Inclusive strategy, possibly reflecting their preference for such environments and their role in advocating for LGBTQ+ strategies (Mann et al., 2023). Further research should investigate barriers and facilitators in implementing Curricular & Pedagogical and Extracurricular strategies.

LGBTQ+ related strategy profiles and perceptions of school climate

To inform the development of evidence-based practice, this study explored the relationship between LGBTQ+ related strategy profiles and perceptions of school safety and community respect. Indicators of school safety in this study referred to perceptions of school safety, staff response to challenges in schools, hearing negative comments, and challenging experiences (such as verbal harassment, physical harassment or spreading of rumors or lies). Indicators of community respect referred to perceptions of homophobia, transphobia and bullying as a problem in schools. LCA methods were employed to identify where multiple profiles were associated with (dis)similar outcomes. By exploring the salient features of each profile and its associated outcomes, this study was able to identify strategy profiles that may be most effective for cultivating welcoming school climates. Contradictory to expectations, not all LGBTQ+ related inclusive strategy profiles were associated with more positive perceptions of school safety and community respect when compared to profiles that included no LGBTQ+ strategies.

The Comprehensive and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive strategy profiles did not significantly differ from one another across all indicators of school safety and community respect. Comprehensive and Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusive strategy profiles were also generally associated with more positive perceptions of school safety and community respect compared to the Extracurricular and Limited Inclusive profiles (except for challenging experiences and staff responses to problems in schools, discussed below). To some extent, the non-difference between the Comprehensive and Curriculum & Pedagogical profile is surprising. Past research has shown that the greater number of LGBTQ+ related strategies in schools is related to greater student perceptions of school safety, such that schools providing several supportive strategies concurrently are related to more positive perceptions of school climate (Day et al., 2020). Therefore, the inclusion of all types of LGBTQ+ related strategies would be assumed to have an additive effect and improve LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parent perceptions of climates. However, this study did not find evidence of this, indicating that strategies that include curriculum and pedagogical practices may be equally beneficial to incorporating all strategies. Prior research has found that LGBTQ+ students (Kosciw et al., 2022), LGBTQ+ staff (Ullman & Smith, 2018) and LGBTQ+ parents (Mann & Jones, 2022) report stronger perceptions of school safety in schools with staff that respectfully acknowledge LGBTQ+ identities, include LGBTQ+ inclusive school curricula, and are supportive of LGBTQ+ people. Additionally, inclusive curricula may educate all school communities about LGBTQ+ people as a method to address potential stereotypes or biases held by others and encourage positive framings of LGBTQ+ identities in the school community (Ferfolja, 2007). Furthermore, staff-led behaviors and activities may be particularly important as school staff can set the behavioral norms and expectations in schools (Thapa et al., 2013; Wang & Degol, 2016). Taken together, this suggests that the staff led and social norm setting elements of the curriculum and pedagogical strategies are associated with more positive perceptions of the school climate. Future studies are needed to explore the diverse types and features of curriculum and pedagogical strategies adopted by schools, such as the duration and frequency of LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula, and the subjects or framings.

Overall, the Extracurricular Inclusive profile was the third most effective strategy profile in terms of perceptions of school safety. Echoing previous research (Mann & Jones, 2022; Ullman, 2021; Ullman & Smith, 2018), LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents in the Extracurricular Inclusive strategy profile reported more positive perceptions of safety compared to the Limited Inclusive profile (i.e., schools that do not provide any LGBTQ+ related strategies). However, participants in the Extracurricular Inclusive profile reported similar concerns in challenging experiences and staff responses to problems in schools as both the Curriculum & Policy and Limited Inclusive profiles, all of which were significantly different than the Comprehensive Inclusive profile (Table 5). This finding is surprising given LGBTQ+ strategies are generally assumed to create safer school environments by raising acceptance of LGBTQ+ people in all school community members and raising staff confidence in addressing problems when they occur (e.g., Day et al., 2020). Potential explanations for this lack of difference in challenging experiences and staff responses may be explained by the potential variability in the consistent implementation of LGBTQ+ related strategies within schools. School staff can differ significantly in their attitudes and beliefs toward the sustainable implementation and enforcement of LGBTQ+ related strategies in schools (Hegde et al., 2014). Therefore, it may be that only some staff include these strategies and not enough to reach a “critical mass” and subsequent changes in more positive perceptions of school climate. Future research is needed to explore associations between perceptions of the school climate and potential variability within and between schools such as the number of staff implementing LGBTQ+ related strategies, and school leadership commitment to enforcing such strategies.

In contrast to expectations, LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents in the Extracurricular Inclusive profile reported hearing negative comments more frequently compared to the Limited Inclusive profile. Further, there was no significant difference between either profile on any indicators of community respect. The finding that participants in the Extracurricular Inclusive profile reported a greater frequency of hearing negative comments in schools may be a reflection of GSAs (and other extracurricular activities and groups) historically being formed as a proactive approach to address challenging school contexts (Marx & Kettrey, 2016). Further, informal curricula in GSAs may include education about challenging experiences in schools, making students more aware of mistreatment (Snapp et al., 2015), and more sensitive when reporting such experiences in surveys. Thus, these strategies may indicate an existing negative school climate rather than associated with a decline in perceptions of safety and community respect. Moreover, the similarities in perceptions of community respect in the Extracurricular Inclusive profile and Limited Inclusive profile may reflect the potential for these extracurricular activities and resources to offer safe spaces in schools at particular times (e.g., annual celebratory days) and places (e.g., GSA meetings) that may not be experienced often or frequently enough to create meaningful change in respectful treatment of others in schools. The findings indicate that the most common strategy adopted by schools was the Limited Inclusive profile (48.2%). Most schools lacked LGBTQ+ inclusive strategies, leading to greater concerns about safety and respect among LGBTQ+ community members. Implementing LGBTQ+ strategies is crucial for creating safer and more respectful school environments.

Implications for policy and practice

The results of this study identify two key implications for educational policy-makers, educational and wellbeing staff, school leadership, and educational psychologists required by legislation and professional standards to provide access to safe learning environments for everyone, including LGBTQ+ individuals. First, this study highlights the need for schools and educational stakeholders to adopt LGBTQ+ related strategies to promote safe and respectful school communities. Generally, the results indicate just under half (48.2%) of schools in the sample did not include any LGBTQ+ related strategies, and participants in this profile consistently reported more concerns in safety and community respect indicators of school climate. Our findings suggest that if schools implement any strategies, curriculum and pedagogical strategies are likely to be most effective and should be a key focus. Staff-led behaviors and pedagogical activities that affirmed LGBTQ+ identities may be the most beneficial in promoting perceptions of school safety and respectful school communities because they help to establish social school norms and expectations. Educational policy-makers, pre-service staff educators, and school leadership should explicitly prioritize knowledge of LGBTQ+ affirming teaching practices in pre-service, and in-service, education-related professionals. We also suggest that staff, leadership and policy-makers to consider adopting culturally appropriate LGBTQ+ inclusive strategies advocated by international LGBTQ+ supportive organizations such as Stonewall (2022) in the UK, and GLSEN (2024) in the USA. LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula strategies suggest incorporating LGBTQ+ community experiences across all subjects, like representing LGBTQ+ experiences in Nazi Germany or including LGBTQ+ family diversity in math problems. Pedagogical approaches include staff training to address homophobic or transphobic attitudes and seeing challenges as teaching opportunities. Due to the absence of standardized best practices, future research should focus on developing LGBTQ+ curricular strategies in collaboration with the LGBTQ+ community.

Second, schools can differ widely in the types of LGBTQ+ inclusive strategies adopted, ranging from no strategies to all-inclusive. The provision of supports can also differ based on institutional characteristics such as school type and school location. While the lack of standardized best-practice LGBTQ+ related strategies has been posited as a potential strength in allowing schools to develop and implement sustainable strategies that meet school-specific considerations (Wang & Degol, 2016), too much flexibility is problematic because school leadership and school staff can have highly diverse attitudes toward LGBTQ+ identities. To ensure consistent support for LGBTQ+ individuals in all schools, regardless of type or location, it is crucial to standardize strategies in state and national educational policies and professional standards.

Limitations

While this study provided a unique person-centered approach to understanding LGBTQ+ community members’ views on school climate, it has several limitations. This study adopted targeted convenience sampling through social media for individuals with an interest or connection to the LGBTQ+ community with an over-representation of students, and LGBTQ+ community members with access to social media, which may limit generalizability to the general LGBTQ+ community. This sample also over-represents transgender students, who are widely acknowledged as experiencing more hostile school climates. However, it does provide valuable insights into various minority group member experiences and perceptions of schools, and viable LGBTQ+ related strategies schools can utilize to promote school climates. Future work may consider capturing comparable student, staff, and parent sample sizes. Additionally, this study focussed on broad indicators of safety and community respect aspects of the school climate, which may overlook other aspects of the school climate similarly influential in academic and wellbeing outcomes of the LGBTQ+ community. Future research could consider other indicators of climate, such as relationship quality with staff or sense of belonging to schools.

Conclusion

The study investigated LGBTQ+ strategy profiles in schools and their impact on perceptions of school safety and community respect among LGBTQ+ students, LGBTQ+ staff, and LGBTQ+ parents. Four strategy profiles were identified. Profiles with staff-led activities (like LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula and staff training) were linked to positive perceptions of school safety and respect. Extracurricular strategies (like GSAs and awareness days) were also associated with better views of school safety though not community respect. Nearly half of the sample attended schools lacking any LGBTQ+ strategies, reporting greater safety concerns. The findings suggest that schools without LGBTQ+ strategies may foster unsafe environments. Promoting inclusivity through extracurricular activities and affirmative teaching practices is recommended.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2024.2384933.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by Macquarie University.